_New myth or new reality?Chances are, you have never heard of democratizing the media.

One revolution deserves another. The revolution of 2008-2009, which changed the American political system into a full-fledged oligarchy, was neither unprecedented nor unheralded;Aristotle wrote about it 2000 years ago.(See post of October 24, 2011, "The Great American Illusion")

That Second American Revolution created nothing new. However, it made manifest things that had been latent. Today, they are generating new questions, demanding new answers. Revolutions go to the roots. The private media´s roots are as widespread as they are shallow... George Orwell, author of 1984 and Animal Farm, indefatigable foe of Big Brother and of government censorship, came to a startling conclusion: The most dangerous censor is not governmental.Orwell wrote the“chief danger to freedom of thought and speech at this moment is not the direct interference of…any official body. If publishers and editors exert themselves to keep certain topics out of print, it is not because they are frightened of prosecution but because they are frightened of public opinion.In this country intellectual cowardice is the worst enemy a writer or journalist has to face, and that fact does not seem to me to have had the discussion it deserves [my emphasis]…" The so-called free press – so called because it is not democratic, viz., it is the property of oligarchs – censors more articles and books in 2 weeks than all the governments in the world censor in 20 years. Among the censored works:anything supporting the discussion Orwell sought.2 weeks/20 years...I know, I know,you think I am over the top, exaggerating.You grew up hearing the same nonsense I did:only official, governmental censorship exists.First, I speak from hard experience as a columnist with the El Paso Times and numerous other newspapers. My articles were subjected to three types of censorship: (1) The articles simply were not published. (2) Editors actually put in things I did not write. (3) Editors took out paragraphs and sentences, significantly altering the meaning of what I had written. So much for unofficial censorship.

As for official censorship, no government employee anywhere ever told me I could not write something. By the way, I have been in some tough places, e.g., Panama under Noriega, Chile under Pinochet.

But don´t take my word for it.

Listen to the chief of the editorial staffs of the New York Times and the New York Sun.Over a century ago, John Swinton was the preeminent journalist of his day. One night in 1880, he addressed unofficial censorship -- the elephant in the room.What Swinton said was short and not very sweet.He "was the guest of honour at a banquet given him by the leaders of his craft. Someone who knew neither the press nor Swinton offered a toast to the independent press. Swinton outraged his colleagues by replying:There is no such thing, at this date of the world's history, in America, as an independent press. You know it and I know it.There is not one of you who dares to write your honest opinions, and if you did, you know beforehand that it would never appear in print. I am paid weekly for keeping my honest opinion out of the paper I am connected with. Others of you are paid similar salaries for similar things, and any of you who would be so foolish as to write honest opinions would be out on the streets looking for another job. If I allowed my honest opinions to appear in one issue of my paper, before twenty-four hours my occupation would be gone.The business of the journalists is to destroy the truth, to lie outright, to pervert, to vilify, to fawn at the feet of mammon, and to sell his country and his race for his daily bread. You know it and I know it, and what folly is this toasting an independent press?We are the tools and vassals of rich men behind the scenes. We are the jumping jacks, they pull the strings and we dance. Our talents, our possibilities and our lives are all the property of other men. We are intellectual prostitutes."Makes you wonder… what is it, exactly, the so-called free press – the rich men behind the scenes – so desperately do not want you to see? This blog gave one hard, specific case (see "How to Steal An Election and Not Get Caught -- Unitl Now" in the latter part of the May 17, 2012 post). I wrote it a few days after the 2000 election. No major daily in America would publish the article – not even as a letter to the editor. It reveals how George Bush may have stolen the 2000 election in Florida, hence the presidency, via a technique known as The Long Count.To combat such veiled censorship by media owners, we pick up where Orwell left off:Intellectual cowardice is the worst enemy a writer or journalist has to face, and that fact does not seem to me to have had the discussion it deserves.As we shall see, the missing discussion of intellectual cowardice, i.e., of censorship by media owners, is arriving with seven league boots. Its enemies, however, are regrouping, rearming, strengthening their defenses. As for who they are...This blog has a political position the mainstream media and universities prohibit. To wit: the American political system instituted in 1789 by Madison, Hamilton and other Founding Fathers was not a democracy but rather a политей or "polity," i.e., an oligarchy/democracy hybrid tending toward democracy and moderated by a large middle class.In 2008-2009, the Bush-Obama giveaway of billions of public dollars to the American mega-wealthy replaced the polity with an oligarchy. (See post of October 24, 2011: "The Great American Illusion")The unabashed, unabridged reign of the oligarchy today is why the discussion Orwell called for is not possible in the United States. We must and will look elsewhere.First, though, we will phrase Orwell´s concern in the form of a new question:

What can be done to control the media owners´ unofficial censorship so as to strengthen democracy -- not weaken it?That is to say: how can the media be democratized?UnAmerican! Swintonian tools and vassals, I hear your plaintive cry.I regret to inform you but there is a 100% American precedent that media tycoons are not entitled to 100% libertinage in what they purvey to the public.That precedent is public affairs broadcasting.The federal government requires it of all TV and radio stations. The Federal Communications Commission oversees public broadcasting. The FCC´s summary:"In exchange for obtaining a valuable license to operate a broadcast station using the public airwaves, each radio and television licensee is required by law to operate its station in the ´public interest, convenience and necessity.´ This means that it must air programming that is responsive to the needs and problems of its local community of license.To do so, each station licensee must affirmatively identify those needs and problems and then specifically treat those local matters that it deems to be significant in the news, public affairs, political and other programming that it airs... we expect station licensees to be aware of the important problems and issues facing their local communities and to foster public understanding by presenting programming that relates to those local issues...however, broadcasters – not the FCC or any other government agency – are responsible for selecting the material that they air. By operation of the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, and because the Communications Act expressly prohibits the Commission from censoring broadcast matter, our role in overseeing program content is very limited."Over 90% of public programming in America is a hoax. Controlled by an oligarchy, how could it be otherwise? Public affairs broadcasts are consigned to graveyard slots when almost nobody is tuned in. Even more importantly, the owners of TV and radio stations are allowed to define public interest.To repeat, the new American political system is making manifest many things which had been latent.One is giving rise to a second new question:The FCC only regulates TV and radio stations. Why not require public interest, convenience and necessity of book publishers, magazines, newspapers? Why should they be exempt from public responsibility?What it comes down to:For the first time, censorship by all private media owners is being challenged -- but not in the United States.The front line of the battleground is Latin America, particularly Mexico.

* * *I spent three years in Mexico City, Guadalajara, Cuernavaca, and Guanajuato.I invite anybody who says Mexico has a “free” and “uncensored,” “democratic” media “open” to “all citizens” to take a lie detector test.(Local seismologists should be alerted in advance in order to account for the surge in their Richter scales).Unofficial, veiled censorship in Mexico has reached such an absurd, unsustainable level that -- like the Soviet Union´s economic system in the 1980s -- it is wobbling, bending, stumbling under its own weight.Last month, Mexican students in massive numbers took to the streets to protest the private media.The demonstrations were sparked by the presidential candidate, Enrique Peña Nietoof the PRI, the corrupt political party that ruled Mexico 1929-2000.Nieto spoke at the Universidad Iberoamericana.The students were dissatisfied with his answers to their questions; an uproar ensued.In an attempt at damage control, PRI officials claimed the protestors were not “real” students -- whereupon 131 Ibero students created an Internet video in which they gave their names and showed their credentials.Thus began the YoSoy132 (“I am 132”) movement roiling Mexico this very moment.One major change has already been produced.Peña Nieto, who was leading Andrés Manuel López Obrador in the polls by 14%, in a few weeks saw his lead evaporate to 4%.* The election is July 1, two weeks away. The PRI of course is trying to connect the students to Obrador; however, the students deny any political affiliation.What they are clamoring for is “el manejo de la información de manera honesta” (the management of information in an honest manner) and a “pueblo informado y no manipulado” (an informed, not a manipulated, public).[1]In short, they are demanding the democratization of the media.Another development has yet to appear in Mexico, though, and it will prove to be decisive.A researcher, Raúl Trejo Delarbre, warned that the protests could turn into a “momentary catharsis,” and that the “distinctive nature of the movement could easily degenerate into triviality if the protesting students are unable to give form to their demands.”The students must realize that “opening up the media is not achieved simply by marching in the streets or by giving an interview.”[2]Demands for democratizing the media are spreading throughout Mexico and are moving into other Latin American nations.So, what specific, concrete forms can consolidate the demands?How can they be institutionalized?I.Established international organizations.Forget the Organization of American States and its Inter-American Commission on Human Rights. Both are United States-owned and operated enterprises.Rubber duckies of the oligarchy: squeeze them and warm water spurts out.

There is a second problem.For every success you show me of the OAS since its founding in 1948, I will show you 10 failures.(For starters, why must the OAS be stuck in Washington, D.C.?The headquarters should be rotated among its members so that all can benefit from its multimillion-dollar budget).Fortunately, there are international organizations which are alternatives to the OAS:1.UNASUR (Unión de Naciones Suramericanas) at the request of one of its members, Ecuador, soon will take up the issue of unofficial censorship and other antidemocratic practices of the private media.2.CELAC (Community of Latin American and Caribbean States)is preparing to create a commission to “supplement” the Human Rights Commission of the Organization of American States. The new commission will be proposed in December meetings. Among its concerns:censorship by and for private media owners.3.Last but not least, ALBA (Alianaza Bolivariana por los Pueblos de Nuestra América) is also considering creating its own commission on human rights, with an emphasis on freedom of expression blocked by private media owners.II.National organizations.As the case of the FCC and its public broadcasting requirement showed, old forms are not up to the new task of democratizing the media.One proposal:Councils would be created to which authors could formally complain about their articles, videos, etc., which the media turned down. The media would then be required to send the censored material to the appropriate council, which would select works it deems to be in the public interest, convenience or necessity.If the selections are too numerous to be practical for public diffusion, a pool would be formed from which a final random selection would be made. The media would then be legally compelled to publish or air the works they had previously censored. To plug up the weasel holes of graveyard hours, printing articles in microscopic text crammed among tire ads in the back of the back pages, etc., the final placement of council-selected works would be determined by a random draw.Obviously, there are many issues to be decided -- which is exactly the point.The membership of the councils, how they are chosen and how long their members serve, the criteria by which they define public interest, the schedule for publishing or broadcasting censored works: all would form the discussion Orwell called for.The hour for challenging veiled censorship by media tycoons is here. As a result of the 2008-9 revolution of the United States political system, a major restriction on human rights that had been hidden is now being exposed to the full light of day. The cause of that exposure: now in uncontested control, the oligarchy is overplaying its hand.Mexican students, UNASUR, CELAC, ALBA, Ecuador, and all others fighting censorship by media tycoons:you have the opportunity to lead the world. Your efforts will determine if democratization of the media is a new reality or a new myth._______________*NOTE made June 28. Widely published poll results are showing Nieto has gone back up to 40%, with 24% for Obrador. It is also being widely published that the election-night reporting in Mexico will have live, real-time counting of the votes in order to have "absolute transparency." BEWARE!!! The technique known as The Long Count for stealing elections, a variation of which the PRI practiced in 1988, has absolutely NOTHING WHATSOEVER to do with real-time counting of votes; we are looking at two ships passing in the night. Long Count thieves are laughing in their Tecates preparadas.[1]Helena Lozano Galarza, “El Despertar Universitario”, Newsweek en Español, 3 de junio y 10 de junio, 2012, p. 17. My translation.[2] Ibid.My translation.

The first time I saw him, he was casually sitting in a chair in a large, almost vacant room. My instant impression: I...no...yeah...it´s him, all right. A second instant impression instantly followed: college student. RFK was in his late 30s, but you didn´t notice it until you got up close. He had a halo of youth. Energy, too.

He played touch football.

I stared at him -- and he stared right back. RFK gave you the feeling that, for him, the entire world disappeared except for you and what you were saying. I have never experienced such total, absolute concentration by anybody before or since. Was it the source of his charisma?

We all have unconscious traits that we project outward. Those traits are positive ("The Dream Woman") as well as negative. To wit: we all have "The Shadow," a collection of negative characteristics -- we lie, cheat, steal --, which we do not wish to acknowledge and therefore project onto other people.

The outside person, however, must have a "hook" that ignites the unconscious feelings and causes that person to become their depository. RFK´s hook, I believe, was his total concentration on you: it could not help but flatter your ego. I doubt he was aware of what was happening -- the process of projection is unconscious. It was just the way he was, how he interacted with people. Such things are born, not manufactured.

Beside youth and energy, RFK radiated something else:

The sociologist Pierre Bourdieu cataloged and analyzed ( La Distinction) the tastes of the different socio-economic classes in France. Music, TV programs, art, furniture, food -- nothing was spared; he could walk into your living room, look at the walls and tell you where you came from. Bourdieu nailed the identifying characteristic of the aristocracy: ease. A member of the American oligarchy, RFK was, above everything else, easygoing. I guess his mother, Rose, was at the heart of it.

Believe it or not, once upon a time there were wealthy people who cared about their country and wanted to serve it. They had an innate sense of justice and injustice, in particular a smoldering rage about poverty. The Roosevelts and the Kennedys are the most notable cases. Both families were accused of being "traitors to their class." No such charge can be made against the ill-at-ease American oligarchics of today. They take the money and run. Romney included.

There is no doubt in my mind that if RFK had not been assassinated June 6, 1968, he would have won the presidency. He had managed JFK´s presidential campaign and had all the contacts plus experience that went with it. Keep in mind, too, the eventual winner of the presidency that year was Richard Nixon. The rest is history -- or anti-history.

I also have no doubt that had RFK won the White House we would be looking at a different presidency today. Maybe a different country. I say that based on my experience with the President´s Committee...

The staff was all federal employees; none were bureaucrats. They knew what they were supposed to do and did it. I don´t recall anybody, ever, talking about RFK; they didn´t have to. HIs presence was all over the place. He was The Absent Host. He inspired not so much by what he did, but by who he was. He cared. For all you employers and bosses out there, RFK made everybody work harder by making them like what they were doing. Easy, isn´t it? Or is it...

I had two reasons for keeping this matter secret for almost 50 years:

First, I did not want to be known as "the man who worked for Robert Kennedy." I do not deserve either the adulation by many or the contempt of a few that goes with that categorization. I was right, though, about the power the label carries; old friends are already looking at me differently. There´s nothing I can do about it and don´t try. At this stage of my life I can handle it -- unlike before.

The second reason I never talked about it: when I look around at what is happening in the world, especially Washington, it makes me heartsick to think of RFK. A short but not so sweet case in point:During the Cuban missle crisis in Ocrober 1962, RFK argued against other presidential advisors who were recommending an air strike against missiles in Cuba:

"It would be very, very difficult indeed for the President if the decision were to be for an air strike, with all the memory of Pearl Harbor and with all the implications this would have for us in whatever world there would be afterward. For 175 years we had not been that kind of country. A sneak attack was not in our traditions. Thousands of Cubans would be killed without warning, and a lot of Russians too. He favored action, to make known unmistakably the seriousness of United States determination to get the missiles out of Cuba, but he thought the action should allow the Soviets some room for maneuver to pull back from their over-extended position in Cuba." (For a full account, see RFK´s book, Thirteen Days).

A sneak attack was not in our traditions. Comparethemoral and historical concerns of RFK to the Obama drone attacks taking place now in Pakistan and elsewhere, attacks which violate the sovereigny of other nations and which killed two American citizens without according them constitutionally-required due process.It is not surprising that Obama is prey to phony, Hamlet-style angst ("Whether 'tis nobler in the mind to suffer the slings and arrows of outrageous fortune, or to take arms against a sea of troubles, and by opposing end them?") -- phony, because Obama always goes ahead and does what was going to do anyway: push the button.

RFK: just one more step... What truly could have been and in fact almost was.

Let´s change the subject.

* * *Dayton, Ohio. Winter of 1968. President Lyndon Johnson was going around the country preparing his reelection bid. The setting was strikingly appropriate: a horserace track.

I don´t know how he got from Point A to Point B, but suddenly there he was, walking toward the podium. I thought: That guy is HHHUUUGGGE. He must have been 6´5”. Apart from his height, the most impressive thing about LBJ was his hair. Bureaucratic gray; he exuded Washington, D.C. No hint anywhere of the rural Texas school teacher he once was.

We students hated LBJ. The Viet Nam War was raging, and we regarded him as a war criminal. When he got to his subject, “The Future of Youth in America,” I heard a rustle behind me. Protestors raised a gigantic banner with words written in blood-red letters: GET OUT OF VIET NAM, MURDERER!

I was only about 30 feet from LBJ. He, too, heard the rustle. He looked up from his notes. I will never forget his response made to someone unseen in the sky: “Protest…yes, we have the right to protest. That´s why our men are in Viet Nam, to protect the right to protest. Our soldiers…we must protect them, help them protect us. And that´s why you can´t protest…in order to protect the men who are protecting... the…right to…” He checked himself, looked down at his notes, picked up where he left off.

Frankly, I had come to the conclusion that all our demonstrations were a waste of time, that LBJ and his administration were isolated and impervious. My opinion totally changed in the course of three seconds of his incoherent rant. I thought: My god! We´re getting to the old boy. Time to step on the gas!

We didn´t go far. On March 31, 1968, LBJ announced he was not running for re-election. I was in a room with about 100 other students watching TV. I still remember the explosion of joy his words released. Little did we suspect what were in for...Physically, LBJ was an imposing man. Mentally, a nothing. Which is why, today, nothing is said about him. The last time I saw Johnson´s name in the paper was in 2007 when his widow, Lady Bird, died.

* * *

Fall 1974. Jimmy Carter was touring the country collecting chits for his 1976 presidential campaign and putting together his campaign staff.

I was on the staff of a gubernatorial campaign for which I conducted polls, precinct analyses and studies of the voting records of the two candidates when they were state senators. We held a fund-raising dinner, $25 per head, at which Carter was the guest speaker. The place was packed.

The next day Carter visited our headquarters. Being from the South, I knew who he was and had a favorable impression: he was the governor who had reformed state government in Georgia.

I saw Carter coming down the hall. I was surprised by his height; he was much shorter than I had imagined. The most distinguishing thing about him was his facial complexion: deep, deep red. I thought: He looks exactly like what he is: a peanut farmer.

I guess the campaign manager has talked to him. Carter pulled me into an empty room. His tone and look were no-nonsense. He definitely has executive genes. He cut right to the quick:

“What are you doing after the campaign?” he asked. He indicated he needed a pollster.

I told him all my forces were concentrated on the campaign at hand. My candidate had indicated he wanted me to work on his gubernatorial staff, so, well, “there you have it.” What I did not tell Carter: I had lived 6 months in D.C. and didn´t want to go back, not even for a White House position.

Carter smiled with compassion, shook my hand. We parted.

Going back to my office, I thought: Down-to-earth guy. Born organizer. A very decent man.

* * *Early 1980s. Vice President George Bush (Senior) came to town. The Republicans were trying to recrute me to work on a U.S. House of Representative reapportionment plan. They gave me an invitation to a cocktail party.

To the contrary of Carter, Bush is much taller than he looks on TV – 6´2”, maybe. Great suit, I thought. Unlike other politicos, he did not work the room, compulsively shaking hands He looked reserved, almost shy, uncomfortable about where he was and what he was doing. Totally contrary to RFK, Bush´s thoughts were someplace else. He was unapproachable, and I did not approach him. * * *In 1974, Jimmy Carter was not the only Southern politician touring the country preparing the ground for a presidential race. George Wallace, Governor of Alabama, was hitting the pavement.

“Segregation now, segregation tomorrow, segregation forever.” Wallace was not my cup of tea. Nevertheless, at the request of the head of the Democrat Party, I payed a courtesy call at his hotel.

Like Carter, Wallace was a short man. An assassination attempt in 1972 had put him in a wheelchair. During our conversation somehow the incident of 1963 came up: he had gained national prominence by standing on the steps of the University of Alabama, trying to stop the entrance of the first Black students. I asked him about it.

With his body he adroitly deflected the question. He told me what he had said before. “That was then, this is now. I made a mistake, and I am truly sorry.” As far as I am concerned, a mistake acknowledged is a mistake erased. ´nuff said.

My first impression of Wallace is my last: Pain. His face reflected incredible, mind-boggling pain. It didn´t show on TV. I figured it came from the assassination attempt. I thought: My god – this man isn´t going to be able to take on a nationwide campaign. No way.

Wallace entered the presidential race in 1975, lost heavily in the Democratic primaries. He quit in June 1976 and endorsed Carter.

Excruciating pain. Scrappy. Executive type of guy. Hardball.* * *1982. President Ronald Reagan came to our state to assist a GOP senator in his bid for re-election. The GOPs had given me another (see above) invitation to a private cocktail party.

I was in The Big City working as an expert witness in a federal reapportionment lawsuit. I spent the entire morning and part of the afternoon consulting with our legal team. I got in my car and…

I looked at a huge building three blocks away. President Reagan was there all right, no doubt about it. Huge paramilitary vans with tinted windows lined the streets. Armed men on the rooftops. Streets blocked off. Police everywhere.

The cocktail party would take up the rest of the day. There was a pile of legal papers, mostly supreme court decisions, on the seat beside me. I had to make a choice.

I kept driving.

I adjusted the rearview mirror, looked a last time at the building. Let´s see now…A political consultant who has the opportunity to meet a sitting president and passes it up.

Surely among the top contenders: when a house is sold, the bank must pass any existing mortgage on to the new buyer. That´s right – no renegotiating, no rate increase. The new buyer´s monthly payment is frozen at the old rate.

Home buyers, real and prospective, loved it. That includes almost everybody. Realtors, of course, thought they were in heaven. Their lobbyists flew in from all over the nation to testify and vilify, to proclaim and defame. The enemy was -- you guessed it -- the mean old bankers who were not going to let billions of dollars slip through their fingers without a fight. Their legions of lawyers and lobbyists armed with bulging briefcases stomped the capitol corridors.

“This one is for all the marbles,” I overheard one wall-leaner murmur.

My boss, the Majority Floor Leader of a House of Representatives, and I watched in amusement the parade of out-of-staters and their theatrics: the all-black L.A. guys with Mercedes car keys dangling seductively in shirt pockets; the bank lobbyists in Brooks Brothers gray suits and power-red ties compulsively watching their watches; lathered-up reporters feverishly taking notes; talking head editorialists on TV foaming at the mouth.

I say amusement because the real purpose of the bill had nothing whatsoever to do with anything any of them said or thought. On top of that, the entire Really Big Show a la Ed Sullivan did not change a single vote.

In truth, the bill was doomed from the start – which was exactly its real purpose.

If you are like most people, you believe (1) some rich guy, who wants to get even richer, runs out and hires (2) a lobbyist to change a (3) troublesome law blocking the way. (4) The lobbyist directly or indirectly buys legislators who are putty in the lobbyist´s hands. (5) The lobbyist and his client win. End of story.

In the version just outlined, the dog is the lobbyist and the tail is the legislator. The dog wags the tail.

The post 5/12/2012 (Part 4: “Snowflake and Mr. Beer”) of this lobbyist series gave a concrete, specific example of how that version is oversimplified, that many if not most of the streets among clients, lobbyists and legislators are not one-way. Sometimes, in fact, the roles are even reversed, and the legislator is the unseen puppet master. Here, the tail wags the dog. When that happens, the lobbyists are at best irrelevant, at worst manipulated for ends they cannot imagine, much less understand.

If my view is correct, then any purported “reform” to clean up only a part of the streets -- the area controlled by lobbyists -- is either naïve or a fraud.

There is a way to gain control of over 50% of the streets. No candidate for public office, from the presidency on down, will dare mention it. We will return to this point.* * *After 60 years of sitting on the sidelines, the Republicans took control of the House of Representatives where I worked. They formed a coalition with 12 highly conservative Democrats from poor rural areas. The Coalition´s margin of victory was only one vote. However, that was enough to seize the Speakership and everything that goes with it: the powers to name committee chairmen and assign House members to committees, to refer legislation to committees for hearings and recommendations, and to manage the proceedings of the House floor.

Formally, I was the Chief Aid to the Majority Floor Leader (the “regular” non-Coalition Democrats), and was responsible for supervising bill analysts. Informally, my assignment was to bust the Coalition. But how?

Power exists only by exercising it. And the newly-ensconced Republicans did so without hesitating a second. To wit: unfailingly, all important bills sponsored by regular Democrats failed by a single vote.

It was payback time, pure and simple. As the 12 Coalition Democrats´ leader discreetly put it in the politicos´ favorite watering hole: We gonnaride ´em hard n’ put ´em up wet!

In this uncompromising atmosphere of unabashed, unabridged hatred, The Big Movida was born. In general, it was as unreal as the world in which it operated.

The Big Movida in a nutshell:

Day after day, I worked with draftsmen preparing bills that were (i) constructive and (2) highly popular with the voters. Something else this legislation had in common: (3) because it was sponsored by regular Democrats, it was born in a coffin. D.O.A.

Why bother? you ask. The essence of The Big Movida was to create atrocious voting records for Coalition members to be used against them in their campaigns for re-election two years away. However, we figured we would not have to wait that long to see results. The mere specter of punishment at the hands of the voters would create tension here and now, as time after time Coalition members were forced by their leadership to walk the plank and vote against good legislation. With enough plank-walking, we reasoned, certain GOPs would start to balk, whine. Under mounting stress, the Coalition would wobble, meander, buckle – crack.

The bill requiring banks to pass on existing mortgages played out as planned. Under the glare of TV cameras and a forest of microphones, the Coalition defeated the bill by one vote. Sitting in the House balcony, I thought I heard a collective wail throughout the state and points beyond.

I also thought I saw a few Coalition members look behind them.* * *The day our mortgage bill died, a Republican came to see me.

As mentioned, the Coalition had 12 defector Democrats. We, in turn, had 4 defector Republicans from the upper crust area of The Big City. This gentleman was one of them.

He was deeply worried. Republican Party chiefs already were out beating the bushes, trying to drum up somebody to run against him in the primary elections. “I need to burnish my conservative credentials -- fast.” The other GOP dissenters were in the same predicament:

I told him we had nothing on the front burner at the moment, but I would definitely see what I could do to help him and his colleagues.

A few hours later a lawyer in the Attorney General`s office called me. I owed him a big favor. He got me my first job in federal court as an expert witness on politics.

His question floored me.

“Do you know anybody in the mafia? I need to contact them.”

I told him that not only did I not know anybody, I didn´t even have the vaguest idea who in the Cosa Nostra was in charge of our region of the country. “Sorry, you know how much I would like to …ah…hmmm…wait a second…”

In politics, your moves are limited. That is all the more true when you are in the minority. Narrow and hard limits are why you must make each move serve more than one purpose; you must economize. In that regard, there was a direct connection between the requests of the GOP dissident law-maker and of the A.G. lawyer. Do you see it?

I stopped everything and had a bill drawn up prohibiting anybody with a felony conviction from having a financial interest in a racetrack. The GOP dissident sponsored it, along with the three other dissidents.

Next, I talked with the House telephone operators.

The following morning the GOP dissidents dropped their bill in the hopper. I went to my office and waited.

Not an hour passed before a call came in asking about the racetrack bill. The operators transferred the caller to me. I have no idea who it was, but it wasn´t your Aunt Mary. I transferred him to the A.G. lawyer.

The racetrack bill became part of The Big Movida. As expected, it failed by one vote. As for the lobbyists, not a single one testified against it.

As for 50% of the bill´s real purpose, all 4 GOP dissidents were re-elected. Regarding the other 50%, the A.G. lawyer later told me he flew to Arizona for a 20 minute “audience.”

I never asked him whom he met or the purpose of the meeting. Whatever it was, it wasn´t to order Godfather´s pizza.

* * *A daily grind began that lasted for almost a month. We made the Coalition walk the plank 20 times with no visible sign of duress, much less decay. We were losing faith in The Big Movida. Then, low and behold, the Coalition handed us something beyond our wildest dreams.

Our state was among those with a formula that guarantees rich and poor counties will receive equal funding for public education. In the packet of bills introduced that morning was a measure to change the formula. What caught my eye: (i) the bill brought to mind a famous photo of Einstein at a blackboard covered with incomprehensible symbols. I have a hard and fast rule. In politics, if you don´t understand something, vote “No.” (ii) The primary sponsor was the leader of the 12 Coalition Democrats.

I showed the bill to the Majority Floor Leader. “Get a load of this,” I said: “A guy who can´t figure out a gas bill last night magically became a math pro. Can you explain it?”

“No,” he muttered: “See if you can.”

I called the Director of the State Education Department. His staff was already reviewing the bill. It was being sold as a mere “update” that consisted mostly of “cleanup language.”

That afternoon, the Director burst into my office, bill in hand. “Diabolical! What this piece of crap would do is transfer teachers and classrooms from all over the state into the districts of the 12 Coalition Democrats!”

“Can you have your staff prepare a list of how much each district in the state would win and lose?” I asked.

He pulled out his Pocket Daytimer, made a note: “Thomas, you´re pushing on an open door.”

The bill sailed through the Education Committee and arrived on the House floor. The Majority Floor Leader handed out to all House members and the media the Education Department´s list of winners and losers.

Coalition activity on the floor suddenly, noticeably mounted. A lot of heads were bobbing, bodies weaving, arms folding, fingers pointing, hands trembling. The Coalition leaders were yanking a lot of chains. As expected, the formula “reform” bill passed by one vote.

Two weeks later, the legislative session ended. As far as we were concerned, The Big Movida flopped. All that work for nothing. We were packing up, getting ready to go when a call came in from a “birdie” – legislative parlance for informant – to check the bulletin board.

Two freshmen GOPs from uptown neighborhoods of The Big City had scheduled a press conference for that afternoon.

They announced they were leaving the Coalition and that they were changing their party affiliation from Republican to Independent. The reason: too often the Coalition wanted us to vote against the interests of our districts.

In the course of three seconds, we went from the agony of defeat to the thrill of victory. The Speaker had one more year to serve of his two-year term – he could not be removed -- so the only thing that changed was the floor vote. Nevertheless, the writing was on the wall. With it, the House became a more civilized place. One indication: in the following legislative session our mortgage act passed and became state law.

Over a 60 year period the Republicans had mastered the art of how to act like a minority. They had no idea how to act like a majority. Ramrodding legislation through and trashing the opposition´s bills every chance you get just to show you can do it, will eventually ruin you. It leaves you open to jiu-jitsu tactics like The Big Movida in which your own strength is used against you.

If the other team has a good bill, give the opponent his due. Don´t oppose the bill, but leave it to him to promote it. As for you, create and promote your own stuff.

The Democrats, for their part, learned how to do something they never envisioned, much less taken seriously: how to act like a minority. Too long in power, too many had grown fat, dumb and happy.

You don´t see lobbyists in this discussion? That is the point: lobbyists were beside the point.

Sometimes lobbyists run the show; they are truly the fourth branch of government. Other times, they are reduced to spectators who have no idea what they are watching.* * *I hope you enjoyed this five-part series on lobbyists. Its goal was to furnish an unprecedented transparency regarding how legislatures really work. Political science texts, biographies of politicos, university lectures, interviews, media reports and analyses: none have ever told where it`s at. Only an insider can do that. Hopefully, this series filled part of the gap.

Why the gap is there:

An ironclad rule has been in place for centuries: the people should not be allowed to see how two things are made: sausages and laws. I decided to break the rule about laws because public knowledge is the prerequisite to what needs to be done. To wit:

I wrote that our Big Movida was as unreal as the world in which it operated. I took that position because the real Big Movida does what we did not do: change that unreal world.

Across the nation, Houses of Representatives are a spectacle that should have been shut down years ago. The true Big Movida, then, is the switch to a unicameral legislature (see post of 9/26/2011: “Goodbye, Tweedle-dum”). About half of the nations of the world have a unicam. With our catastrophic national debt, it is time the U.S. joined that world.

Footnote: as always, certain details have been changed to perplex the opponents.